View Full Version : Cherry pick the TDP
We have, and have had, several threads on the minutia of the AR system, from testing, to materials, to finishes, etc. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on a "next generation" AR. Let's keep the form factor essentially identical. Changing the controls or adding levers is fine, but I really want to focus on the materials, finishes, etc. Please also say WHY you would change something, or keep something the way it is now. This isn't about adding rails or changing out the furniture.
Let's also assume DI as well. If someone wants to talk ideal piston gun then start another thread.
Lengthen the gas system and tune it for reliability while reducing the violence of the extraction, change the barrel profile to something that makes more sense than the M4 and look at redesigning the bolt to improve service life.
Put it on a diet to see where weight could be shaved without compromising ruggedness. For example, I'd look at reducing the weight of the rails system, but not at the expense of making it fragile.
Extend the rail of the upper forward a few inches to give more room for optics without having to go with a monolithic design.
Develop a lightweight, slender, heat proof free-floating forearm.
Having a charging handle that's less awkward to operate while the rifle is shouldered might be a good change
I'd be interested in a side charger di rifle, just to see how it performs and if it beats the hell out of some part of my body.
Cagemonkey
05-30-11, 19:11
Put a baked on enamel or polymer finish on the steel exterior parts. The barrel, ejection port cover and bolt assist always seem to rust. Granted, most of this can be attributed to improper cleaning practices. A smooth polymer type finish would eliminate the need to use a GP brush to scrub the dirt from these components. Pretty minor improvement that shouldn't be too controversal.
Standardized buffer, spring and receiver extension across models whether rifle, midlength or carbine.
Standardized barrel gas port size across gas system lengths.
Adjustable gas pressure via dial/knob/screw on gas block, with intregal 'presets' for rifle, carbine, midlength, supressed, etc.
All 3 of the above would allow much greater interchangabilty of parts, cut inventory needs and allow for emergency parts swapping if neccisary.
Easily RH/LH reversable charging handle on side of carrier rather than conventional version, but only if it can be done as non~reciprocating and keep dust/debris out.
'Possibly' a secondary safety system within the trigger guard proper.
Would prefer something closer to M203 as opposed to Glock trigger though.
(ie: a separate manual device that could be left on or off at operators choice rather than always on until the trigger is pulled)
Logic behind it would be that semi/burst/auto could be pre~selected, but firing could not occur until the trigger safety was released.
Moving the the selector lever under stress would not be required and the side benifit of grip not changing at all as a result. Simply 'push/point then pull' with the forefinger.
Done properly it may not even need much if any redesign of the existing trigger but the receiver would need obvious changes.
If used as the primary safety and the selector lever safety position were eliminated, the 4 position selector lever could be revamped to still allow semi/burst/FA, but only need a 180 degree sweep to accomplish all selections.
Even further, it wouldn't require an ambi selector lever as it would be accessable right there centered in the receiver rather than on one side of the other.
I think with modern finishes such as Ion Bond, Melonite, Nickel-Boron, NP3, etc - we should look beyond phosphate and chrome lining for both corrosion resistance and lubricity. I've been impressed with the Fail Zero BCGs and would go with Nickel Boron for the BCG - for ease of maintenance if nothing else. I'll toss it up between Ion Bond and Melonite for the barrel and chamber - but the ability to combine corrosion resistance without the accuracy penalty of the chrome lining seems beneficial.
Cold hammer forged barrel - this next generation AR is going to last longer, so the barrel should also have maximum longevity. Mid-length gas system.
Free floated handguard joined with the upper with at least the option for rail attachments. After watching the recent Daniel Defense torture test video, I'm convinced the railed handguard protected the barrel and fragile gas tube from damage that the older plastic handguards would not withstand.
Fully ambidextrous controls. This is less about accommodating lefties than the fact that we are training to fire the carbine from both shoulders. Being able to put the rifle on safe regardless of the hammer position is beneficial (HK has made this change).
Integrated folding BUIS, front and rear, for maximum optics and accessory (lights and lasers) compatibility (as well as less stuff for the troops to lose in the field).
The handguard and stock should have multiple QD points to accommodate various sling choices, body sizes and gear. QD receiver endplate ala Noveske - simply a functional improvement over the original - and a logical addition considering the modern usage of single point slings.
Time to discard the A2 flash hider in favor of something better. Maximum signature reduction should be the goal for a military rifle. Suppressor functionality should be integrated from the start. Smith-Vortex, AAC Blackout, BE Meyers have paved the trail, but the current Crane competition (Family of Muzzle Brakes and Suppressors - FMBS) will show us the way forward.
KAC is out front on many of these changes with the SR15E3.
Call this a throwback, but after seeing pictures of troops in Afghanistan carrying fully assembled cleaning rods (or rubber banding them to their rifles) in order to clear stuck cartridges, I'd like to take a page out of the Kalashnikov series and add an integrally stored full length cleaning rod to the design. Integrate this with the full length free float handguard and upper - not the barrel.
Heavy Metal
05-30-11, 22:04
Cold Hammer forged, nitirded, polygonally rifled barrel.
Flow formed cobalt alloy barrels using case-telescope ammo.
I wouldn't mind seeing something like a FDE anodized finish standard, along with more corrosion-resistant finishes on some of the steel parts as was already mentioned. I just haven't had the time or desire to paint my ARs and work doesn't want us non-snipers painting our guns, but I can't really see where a black rifle fits into a battle or tactical scenario better than something like FDE or OD.
Start with the SR15e3(CHF barrel, ambi controls, gas system length, bolt) - This should help with controllability, life cycle and recoil management.
Turn it into a dissipater(fixed front and rear sight, rifle length hand guards) - Longer sight radius with a completely covered gas block, again should assist with weapon controllability.
Spring load firing pin - keep from deadening primers
Heavy Metal
05-30-11, 22:15
Flow formed cobalt alloy barrels using case-telescope ammo.....as long as it fires 10mm casless, exploding, light armor piercing ammo. Add a underbarrel pump grenade launcher and a round counter. Make it easy enough for Sigourney Weaver to use.
Robb Jensen
05-30-11, 22:23
For the M4 carbine, Things I would change:
1. Use a 16" barrel, 1x8 twist midlength cold hammer forged 11595-E steel barrel.
2. Crane LMT/KAC SOPMOD or VLTOR E-Mod stock to replace M4 stock both are stronger and better than the M4 stock.
3. KAC E3 style barrel extension and KAC style E3 bolt. Both have proven to last at least 4-5 times longer than Colt style AR/M4 bolts.
4. Standard charging handle replaced with Type 4 or 5 BCM/VLTOR Gunfighter charging handles.
5. CAR receiver extensions replaced with VLTOR A5 extensions and VLTOR 5oz standard A5 buffers. Buffer springs would share the same part number as the M16A2, A3 and A4 buffer springs.
6. Finish on gas tubes, barrel extensions, carrier keys, bolt carriers, cam pins, ejectors, extractors & extractor and ejector pins, firing pins, hammers, triggers and disconnectors, safety/selectors, take down pin detents, safety/selectors detents and interior of inner of metal magazines and the inner and outer surfaces of upper and lower receivers replaced with a nickel boron finish.
I really think that KAC is well ahead of the power curve on this question. But I'll play.
mid-length or intermediate gas system matched with the correct buffer system
adjustable gas system w/ a "suppressed" setting
monolithic upper receiver, bottom section should be removable to allow free float of under barrel auxiliary weapon systems.
improved bolt & extractor
CHF barrel
improved flash suppressor/compensator/suppressor mount
ambidextrous lower receiver
improved charging handle
PMAGS
IMO there's nothing really wrong with anodizing but we should probably move away from black. All steel parts should be nitrided vs parkerized if it can be done without destroying the material properties.
Hell most of this can be done with COTS gear the Grant sells. :D
Heavy Metal
05-30-11, 22:47
Monolith
Too easy!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z16NfTCSyEc/SPxQ3MOuw-I/AAAAAAAABI0/yLuuYsXmxHM/s400/Fourth+and+Final+Marker.jpg
Of course, replace 1913 rails with STANAG 4694 rails.
BufordTJustice
05-31-11, 00:18
I'd like to see some experimentation with modern coatings on the Bolt, bolt carrier, barrel exterior, and trigger mechanism; strengthening the portion of the bolt surrounding the cam pin (like KAC's E3 system); a relocation of the extractor pin to provide more leverage for the extractor spring (like the KAC E3 bolt); consideration of stronger metal for the gas rings and a redesign of the gas rings to a more robust design with longer life; using a barrel nut or some other (robust) system of removing heat more quickly from the chamber area of the barrel regardless of handguards used (JP Rifles' barrel heat sink comes to mind for a starter); adopting a KAC or Noveske barrel profile using a cold hammer forged barrel and a midlength gas system on a 16" or an 8" system on a carbine 14.5" barrel; and affixing a better muzzle device than an A2....or multiple different devices for different roles (SPR, Mk18, M4, M16A4, etc.).
EDIT: after re-reading my post, I think I'm just gonna recommend a NiB coated KAC E3 bolt, cam pin, and receiver extension, with a KAC CHF barrel and intermediate gas system....fuck it. Spec an SR15 E3 w/ an A5 RE and 5oz buffer. Coat the inside of the bitch and all internal components w/ NiB.
For the M4 carbine, Things I would change:
1. Use a 16" barrel, 1x8 twist midlength cold hammer forged 11595-E steel barrel.
2. Crane LMT/KAC SOPMOD or VLTOR E-Mod stock to replace M4 stock both are stronger and better than the M4 stock.
3. KAC E3 style barrel extension and KAC style E3 bolt. Both have proven to last at least 4-5 times longer than Colt style AR/M4 bolts.
4. Standard charging handle replaced with Type 4 or 5 BCM/VLTOR Gunfighter charging handles.
5. CAR receiver extensions replaced with VLTOR A5 extensions and VLTOR 5oz standard A5 buffers. Buffer springs would share the same part number as the M16A2, A3 and A4 buffer springs.
6. Finish on gas tubes, barrel extensions, carrier keys, bolt carriers, cam pins, ejectors, extractors & extractor and ejector pins, firing pins, hammers, triggers and disconnectors, safety/selectors, take down pin detents, safety/selectors detents and interior of inner of metal magazines and the inner and outer surfaces of upper and lower receivers replaced with a nickel boron finish.
Nail, meet hammer.
I would also go with a Geissele F/A trigger, a "flared" mag well (we'll see how NGA's does) and- while optics are an entirely different can of worms- a variant of the TA11 ACOG and/or a variable power optic. The TA01 and TA31's eye relief are unacceptable in comparison.
also include a small bottle of lube in every Emod or LMT stock compartment. Preferably the Sprinco Machine Gunner Lube that LaRue (used to?) ship with their orders. Change the training to emphasize lubrication over white-glove cleaning.
I believe we'll also see significant improvements in barrel coatings.
BrigandTwoFour
05-31-11, 09:39
From my observations of the way the M4 gets used by our security forces guys, and my own tinkering, I think these are the best things that can be improved upon:
1. Fully ambidextrous controls. Like JSGlock said, it has less to do with accommodating lefties than it does with providing adequate control when firing from either shoulder with either hand. Modern training doctrine is less about static range pop-up shooting and more to do with firing from cover and transitions.
2. Charging handle. The BCM Gunfighter is great for operating the gun while it's still at the shoulder with the off hand only, but it still only works from the left side of the gun. So in addition to the ambidextrous control, perhaps it's time to relocate to the sides.
3. Modern coatings. The fabled fragility of the M4 in adverse conditions is, as we all know, overblown. But that doesn't mean it has no merit at all. There are certainly ways we can coat the moving parts to increase longevity an reduce wear.
4. A barrel profile that makes sense. A pencil contour is great for us, but I see how Joe treats his rifle, and it's just asking for trouble if we force a pencil profile. But having the skinny end at the receiver and a fat end at the muzzle doesn't make much sense either. There has to be a happy medium.
5. Easily changed barrels/fore end units. Getting into the really out there conceptual stuff. It would make sense to me that a truly modular rifle could be configured for any mission. We know this can be accomplished by switching uppers on the fly, but what if we reduced that even further down to just the barrel and forearm? Joe could go from a CQB MK18 profile up to a 18" SPR profile in just a few seconds while keeping the same upper receiver and trigger, a forearm and barrel assembly alone certainly takes up less space and weight than a complete upper receiver with separate optics platform.
Littlelebowski
05-31-11, 09:56
Lengthen the gas system. Corrosion free coating fucking everywhere. Lighter barrel profile. Better stock. Lose a lug on the bolt, make the remaining ones bigger and stronger.
If you are going to change the bolt that much, you can just use a larger diameter one - like halfway toward what Remington did with the 30 RAR. If this happened, then finally 7.62x39mm would stop breaking bolts.
Lose a lug on the bolt, make the remaining ones bigger and stronger.
You talkin 7 lug pattern?
Does anything currently use this?
Littlelebowski
05-31-11, 11:56
You talkin 7 lug pattern like on the SCAR?
Aye, sure am.
5. Easily changed barrels/fore end units. Getting into the really out there conceptual stuff. It would make sense to me that a truly modular rifle could be configured for any mission. We know this can be accomplished by switching uppers on the fly, but what if we reduced that even further down to just the barrel and forearm? Joe could go from a CQB MK18 profile up to a 18" SPR profile in just a few seconds while keeping the same upper receiver and trigger, a forearm and barrel assembly alone certainly takes up less space and weight than a complete upper receiver with separate optics platform.
That doesn't make much sense to me. If you changed the barrel on your Mk18 to a Mk12, you would still have an aimpoint on the upper receiver. :p
That doesn't make much sense to me. If you changed the barrel on your Mk18 to a Mk12, you would still have an aimpoint on the upper receiver. :p
I'm also skeptical of the return to zero on QD barrels. Replacing the whole upper is the way to go. I think Colt has embraced this with the CM901. I also have the impression that the QD barrels add weight to the rifle.
For the M4 carbine, Things I would change:
1. Use a 16" barrel, 1x8 twist midlength cold hammer forged 11595-E steel barrel.
2. Crane LMT/KAC SOPMOD or VLTOR E-Mod stock to replace M4 stock both are stronger and better than the M4 stock.
3. KAC E3 style barrel extension and KAC style E3 bolt. Both have proven to last at least 4-5 times longer than Colt style AR/M4 bolts.
4. Standard charging handle replaced with Type 4 or 5 BCM/VLTOR Gunfighter charging handles.
5. CAR receiver extensions replaced with VLTOR A5 extensions and VLTOR 5oz standard A5 buffers. Buffer springs would share the same part number as the M16A2, A3 and A4 buffer springs.
6. Finish on gas tubes, barrel extensions, carrier keys, bolt carriers, cam pins, ejectors, extractors & extractor and ejector pins, firing pins, hammers, triggers and disconnectors, safety/selectors, take down pin detents, safety/selectors detents and interior of inner of metal magazines and the inner and outer surfaces of upper and lower receivers replaced with a nickel boron finish.
This is it right here.
I've been thinking of #6 lately as a possible next project. If you do #6 you will be able to dial down the gas beyond current standards and still have reliable operation. Less gas doing the same job makes DI better on every level.
I would add
KAC mid length gas on the 16" barrel
Something I wrote a year or so back on another forum:
I'll preface this post by saying this: None of what I'm outlying indicates any sort of, 'deal breaker' for the AR/M-16 by any means so please do not construe it as such.
Now if we're talking actual improvements to the system itself as opposed to solely add-on stuff (or bullshit like piston conversions), there are a couple things that could be done:
Increase extractor size.
Maybe 30% larger or so (knee-jerk. Let some engineers actually do the math). As we shorten the barrel (and more importantly, the gas system), extractor tension becomes more paramount due to the increased violence of the action. New inserts and springs help this greatly but if we increased the overall size of the extractor we wouldn't need add-on's. For those that are going to naysay Stoner for having the extractor it does, remember that when he developed the system it was around a 20" barrel with a rifle length gas system.
Adjustable or Self-Regulating gas port (preferably the latter).
Would also quash any sort of issues that shorter gas systems have introduced. Gas port erosion has been referred to by some as a, 'self regulating' issue because as the gas port erodes it also traps more carbon, mitigating the issue somewhat. Still isn't enough since the ROF can increase by nearly 50% on older rifles as opposed to new ones.
Ambidextrous controls standard.
The KAC SR-15 series does this very well. Instead of a bunch of add-on crap they actually have it built into the receiver design. As it stands: boutique rifle. I invariably advocate left hand shooters learn to deal with a right hand rifle without any added crap but if it were standard then there wouldn't be any need for, 'work arounds'
Better, stronger, standard buttstock.
Looks like the Marine Corps might be going in the right direction with this one. In times of plate carriers and other shit it's really needed.
Higher quality BUIS.
nuff' said.
Free Floating Rail System.
Yes, some specific rifles (such as the SAM-R) come equipped with free-floating rail systems but I'd like to see them across the board. One of the reasons this isn't implemented now is because most FF rails preclude mounting an M203 launcher anywhere near to the bore of the rifle (even with the non-FF tubes, it ain't exactly super-close). Maybe give the armorers a little more work and have them switch out rail systems if a rifle is going to have an M203 mounted.
Eliminate any, 'Burst' FCG
Burst FCG = shitty trigger. Stick to standard FA FCG's.
Ambidextrous charging handle and/or forward CH
The entire reason why the CH is where it is on the AR/M-16 is because the design initially included a CH underneath the carry handle. The design proved to be a weak point so the CH was moved to the rear. Better ergonomics = faster manipulations (assuming the same amount of training.)
Decrease in number of locking lugs and increase in physical size
Ala' FN SCAR, not Sig556
Heavier Barrel
..some people, especially trendy people, won't like this one...
More sling attachment points
Would allow for a greater variety of slings. Somewhat self-explanatory.
Better BCG/internal coating
Yah yah, we all know I advocate FailZero. However, many coatings are better than the standard we currently have, namely: Ion-bonding, hard chrome, or FZ. They allow for stretching of lubrication.
RFIDs
No, not adding anything electronic that the weapon depends on to run. Rather, RFIDs that count number of rounds through the weapon. A separate system would allow for annotations when parts failed and/or were replaced. This would allow for us to be something that most units are never about weapons maintenance: Proactive. It's a novel idea which means that big army will likely ignore it :lol:
Anyone else notice that, 'gas piston!!!!' wasn't part of the list? Once again, I reiterate that nothing I outlined above means that the AR/M-16 is anything less than a good, capable weapons system. None of it. If I were starting from scratch, knowing what we know today, the above are things I would change and/or implement.
Higher quality BUIS.
nuff' said.
RFIDs
No, not adding anything electronic that the weapon depends on to run. Rather, RFIDs that count number of rounds through the weapon. A separate system would allow for annotations when parts failed and/or were replaced. This would allow for us to be something that most units are never about weapons maintenance: Proactive. It's a novel idea which means that big army will likely ignore it :lol:
Anyone else notice that, 'gas piston!!!!' wasn't part of the list? Once again, I reiterate that nothing I outlined above means that the AR/M-16 is anything less than a good, capable weapons system. None of it. If I were starting from scratch, knowing what we know today, the above are things I would change and/or implement.
I thought there were a number of different BUISs. I guess the 'standard' is the MaTech but there are others in the system.
Nothing can make people proactive. Standard maintenance usually doesn't get performed, I can see RFIDs costing tons of money and no one ever looking at round counts except to fill out paperwork.
I can see RFIDs costing tons of money and no one ever looking at round counts except to fill out paperwork.
Put an LED on it that comes on like a check engine light every X rounds or so.
(up in the grip or something so it's not like a 'kill me here' light should it come on at an inoppertune time, but still somewhat easy to find if actually checking to see if its active, like during turn~in, draw, inspection arms drill, etc.)
With the ever shrinking size of gizmonics these days, it might be viable for it to be 'smart' enough to spit out a trouble code for the light.
Then make it so an iPod or simular device application could do the scan tool.
Scanners could even be incorporated into arms rooms doors so that things 'auto scan' as weapons pass in and out and can potentially give a heads up (audible alarm from the scanner perhaps?) on weapons that might be approching a round count so that they can be serviced and reset before a deployment or goes out on patrol in a hostile zone.
(disturbing I know, but christ, every kid in the world has some kind of handheld~whatever~device now and they can already read bar codes and credit card swipes, so put everyone on the 'lets keep after this maintenance cycle thing' bandwagon)
Really loose example:
6000 rounds expended, light comes on, code reader gives #'s for changing X parts and inspecting Y parts.
***
The bolt:
One might wonder if there was a way to eliminate the gas rings all together through reshaping of the piston of the bolt, but not require any stupid tight tolerance between bolt and carrier (bad idea for obvious reasons)
The firing pin extension and machined ring on the bolt between the cam and lugs hold the current piston in line with the bore, so its not like they are doing anything more that sealing against gas expansion (oddly enough, just what they were designed to do) but with some subtle reshaping, like more sholder or pocket and less ramp those delicate little bits might be gotten rid of all together.
It might seem a silly analogy, but it works well enough in Cox model airplane engines of roughly the same bore diameter, heat levels and WAY many more cyclic actions.
Flipside of course is that the fuel of said engines also is continuously lubing the parts, but while the engine might see +100,000 revolutions in a single hours use mabe a million+ between inspections/rebuilds, the rifle is totally incapable of such rates of cycle so the needs wouldn't be nearly as high.
For the M4 carbine, Things I would change:
1. Use a 16" barrel, 1x8 twist midlength cold hammer forged 11595-E steel barrel.
2. Crane LMT/KAC SOPMOD or VLTOR E-Mod stock to replace M4 stock both are stronger and better than the M4 stock.
3. KAC E3 style barrel extension and KAC style E3 bolt. Both have proven to last at least 4-5 times longer than Colt style AR/M4 bolts.
4. Standard charging handle replaced with Type 4 or 5 BCM/VLTOR Gunfighter charging handles.
5. CAR receiver extensions replaced with VLTOR A5 extensions and VLTOR 5oz standard A5 buffers. Buffer springs would share the same part number as the M16A2, A3 and A4 buffer springs.
6. Finish on gas tubes, barrel extensions, carrier keys, bolt carriers, cam pins, ejectors, extractors & extractor and ejector pins, firing pins, hammers, triggers and disconnectors, safety/selectors, take down pin detents, safety/selectors detents and interior of inner of metal magazines and the inner and outer surfaces of upper and lower receivers replaced with a nickel boron finish.
1. with melonite finish the entire barrel
4. Type 4 or 5 BCM/VLTOR Gunfighter charging handles that are ambi
6. with any exterior parts in a matte/non-reflective finish.
7. move the forward assist up like on the MUR
8. Bolt release like on the XCR/ACR (Ambi)
9. Ambi-mag release.
Nothing can make people proactive. Standard maintenance usually doesn't get performed, I can see RFIDs costing tons of money and no one ever looking at round counts except to fill out paperwork.
Individual soldiers generally won't have to be proactive. Unit armorers, however, will. Sure you can make them proactive; there are these things called NCO's :D
Anyway, it would just be scanning the rifle every time it was turned into the armory and nothing more. If it needs something changed out they'd just tag it like with any other gun that needs work and an armorer would take care of it at some point.
Ferris2son
06-01-11, 21:54
6.8 SPC
Thomas M-4
06-01-11, 23:00
Its well known that the rifle length is considered the most durable and softest shooting and that the carbine system with its shortened gas tube and buffer spring combination speeds up the cyclic rate also increasing recoil and increasing wear . If we are keeping the M-4 platform's basic layout of 14.5'' barrel and carbine gas system. And keep a high degree of parts interchangeability.
BCG: LMT enhanced BCG . The carrier is specifically ported to the carbine gas system, one problem solved. It also works good for suppressors big +. The bolt has relief cuts to help alleviate bolt lug cracking. It also has dual extractor springs [This does not increase extractor tension as most think] instead the springs lower the K-rate so they have a longer service life.
Barrel: Hammer forged nitrate lined bore and chamber and Heavy Metals suggestion polygonal rifling . Longer service life.
Vltor A5 buffer system: You are using a rifle buffer spring and a buffer that weights the same as the rifle length buffer. Second problem solved. Now you should have a balanced system very close to the original design.
Ditch the burst go back to FA better trigger pull.
N4 barrel profile.
^^^This^^^
variablebinary
06-02-11, 04:31
Throw it all out and start over with the SCAR with some modifications
Beef up the SCAR barrel a bit.
Ditch the proprietary SCAR-H mags for SR15 pattern mags
Voila!
http://www.fnherstal.com/uploads/pics/idex09_scar.jpg
Heavy Metal
06-02-11, 18:55
Heavier Barrel
..some people, especially trendy people, won't like this one...
Why?
I seen no need for a barrel heavier than the M-16A1 and the M-14 on a general issure infantry rifle. Dead weight is just that, dead weight.
If you need a SAW, issue a SAW.
Dirtyboy333
06-03-11, 00:00
Cold Hammer forged, nitirded, polygonally rifled barrel.
This.......As much as i like it, its time to do away with chrome lining. I just finished reading another thread about accuracy expectations of an M4 type and the consensus was 2-5 MOA under the best conditions. Meaning match ammo, good rest, good optic. I would be pissed off if my AR could only shoot 3-4MOA but everyone seemed to be in agreement of the expectations.
So, the only reason i can think of for this is chrome lining. I haven't yet shot my CL DD for accuracy but all of the sudden i have a feeling im going to be disappointed. My cheap non-chromed Dstar M4 and my non-chromed Sig 556 (which aren't known to be accurate) shoot dramatically better than that (with a tool bag for a rest and an awful NcStar scope)
I always heard CL'ing slightly hurt accuracy but i had no idea it was that bad.
Heavy Metal
06-03-11, 00:17
My understanding is the nitriding goes deeper into the steel and produces a more benign wear pattern than chrome which tends to check and flake at the throat.
Dirtyboy333
06-03-11, 00:52
My understanding is the nitriding goes deeper into the steel and produces a more benign wear pattern than chrome which tends to check and flake at the throat.
That's how I understood it also. Accuracy was just one of the reason's I prefer nitriding.
I understand the "pratical accuracy" claim to an extent but realistically better accuracy is, well, better. Another problem with the "pratical accuracy" claim is that it's assuming the soldier is aiming dead center mass in combat which isn't the case. Wonder how many shots to the arm could be to the torso etc.
Also, I have no knowledge of CL vs. Nitride cost but once the facilities are in place, do you think nitriding would be easier/cheaper?
This.......As much as i like it, its time to do away with chrome lining. I just finished reading another thread about accuracy expectations of an M4 type and the consensus was 2-5 MOA under the best conditions. Meaning match ammo, good rest, good optic. I would be pissed off if my AR could only shoot 3-4MOA but everyone seemed to be in agreement of the expectations.
So, the only reason i can think of for this is chrome lining. I haven't yet shot my CL DD for accuracy but all of the sudden i have a feeling im going to be disappointed. My cheap non-chromed Dstar M4 and my non-chromed Sig 556 (which aren't known to be accurate) shoot dramatically better than that (with a tool bag for a rest and an awful NcStar scope)
I always heard CL'ing slightly hurt accuracy but i had no idea it was that bad.
The Noveske N4 is at least sub-1.5 MOA. And it's 2x chrome lined.
Dirtyboy333
06-03-11, 02:16
The Noveske N4 is at least sub-1.5 MOA. And it's 2x chrome lined.
Yeah, that's what I would expect for a CL barrel 1.5-2.
Rob: I see the potential for a hijack on this thread into a CL vs. N. discussion. My fault......I'll stay on topic.
Yeah, that's what I would expect for a CL barrel 1.5-2.
Rob: I see the potential for a hijack on this thread into a CL vs. N. discussion. My fault......I'll stay on topic.
It is on topic, no worries.
The intent here is to gather all of the "I can design a better AR" posts into one place, so a tangent on nitriding vs. chrome lining is right in line with that.
variablebinary
06-03-11, 06:03
Also, I have no knowledge of CL vs. Nitride cost but once the facilities are in place, do you think nitriding would be easier/cheaper?
I've had this conversation with the guys at Robarm couple of times, and the consensus was that nitriding would be cheaper for their operation.
I do wonder, and this is just me thinking out loud, nitride makes the barrel surface harder and more corrosion resistant, but what about heat? Does nitride reduce friction between the projectile and rifling, or increase friction, which in turn would increase heat build up?
Increase extractor size.
Maybe 30% larger or so (knee-jerk. Let some engineers actually do the math). As we shorten the barrel (and more importantly, the gas system), extractor tension becomes more paramount due to the increased violence of the action. New inserts and springs help this greatly but if we increased the overall size of the extractor we wouldn't need add-on's. For those that are going to naysay Stoner for having the extractor it does, remember that when he developed the system it was around a 20" barrel with a rifle length gas system.
Dave,
Just so I'm tracking on this:
Is the purpose to reduce breakages of the extractor itself?
Or
To get a wider bite on the case rim and allow more extraction force without deforming or ripping the rim off?
Or
To move the pivot point to allow more extractor tension without extra heavy springs?
Littlelebowski
06-03-11, 06:29
Why don't you shoot it before pronouncing judgement?
This.......As much as i like it, its time to do away with chrome lining. I just finished reading another thread about accuracy expectations of an M4 type and the consensus was 2-5 MOA under the best conditions. Meaning match ammo, good rest, good optic. I would be pissed off if my AR could only shoot 3-4MOA but everyone seemed to be in agreement of the expectations.
So, the only reason i can think of for this is chrome lining. I haven't yet shot my CL DD for accuracy but all of the sudden i have a feeling im going to be disappointed. My cheap non-chromed Dstar M4 and my non-chromed Sig 556 (which aren't known to be accurate) shoot dramatically better than that (with a tool bag for a rest and an awful NcStar scope)
I always heard CL'ing slightly hurt accuracy but i had no idea it was that bad.
Great point LL. It would be helpful for the purposes of this discussion if people identified issues with the current design that they have ACTUAL firsthand experience with or complaints they have based on ACTUAL use. "I hear chrome lining is bad for accuracy" is different than "I needed to shoot a guy in a man-dress at 200 yards and believe that I missed due to my chrome-lined barrel".
Dirtyboy333
06-03-11, 07:15
VB: I'm not sure about your heat question but it is a good point. And yeah, I had a feeling it would be a cheaper process.
LL: why don't YOU go read the current thread on this site about accuracy expectations and see what YOU gather from it. ;)Also, why don't you stop picking out 1 basically meaningless comment in my post and reply to the general content of it? I have shot it just not for groups (I've shot plenty of CL'd barrels, who hasn't) I honestly think it will be just fine but that thread is a little concerning for ME. In case you didn't understand, I'm referring to CL barrels in general and not just about my particular sample.
Oh my, Rob I don't think you are gonna find anyone who can blame a missed shot in combat on a CL'd barrel. There's no way to determine that.
If there's a process that is equal to or better than CL in protection, wear etc. and at the same time bumps up accuracy, I can't think of any reason not to suggest it. That's not even taking into consideration that it may very well be cheaper.
Anyway, there seems to be some others who would like to see nitriding as well. Again, it's just a suggestion.
LL: why don't YOU go read the current thread on this site about accuracy expectations and see what YOU gather from it. Also, I have shot it just not for groups (I've shot plenty of CL'd barrels, who hasn't) I honestly think it will be just fine but that thread is a little concerning for ME. In case you didn't understand, I'm referring to CL barrels in general and not just about my particular sample.
Can you link to the other thread for those that want to follow along. If it's the thread I think you mean there is whole lot of conjecture and mythology there too.
FWIW, as a general rule of forum etiquette if you're going to mention another thread the best practice is to link to it.
Dirtyboy333
06-03-11, 07:35
Can you link to the other thread for those that want to follow along. If it's the thread I think you mean there is whole lot of conjecture and mythology there too.
FWIW, as a general rule of forum etiquette if you're going to mention another thread the best practice is to link to it.
Well I hope that's the case.
This was the 1st forum I have been a member of so no, I didn't know it was proper etiquette. Lemme try to figure out how to link.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=82250
Particularily concerning to me was the long post with Pat Rodgers stating the standard is 4 MOA. Also noticed most of the people who mention good accuracy (2moa and under) are speaking of non chrome or stainless. I would not be happy 3-4Moa with M193
Again, I really didnt wanna turn this into a thread jack.
I've had this conversation with the guys at Robarm couple of times, and the consensus was that nitriding would be cheaper for their operation.
I do wonder, and this is just me thinking out loud, nitride makes the barrel surface harder and more corrosion resistant, but what about heat? Does nitride reduce friction between the projectile and rifling, or increase friction, which in turn would increase heat build up?
The way I understand it, and i could be wrong, it increase surface lubericitiy (sp?). I would think that it would reduce surface friction which would reduce heat cause by the bullet travel down the barrel. But really think barrel temp would be about the same in the real world.
The one question I would like to find the answer to is this: What would be the better steel to use stainless steel (LW50, 410, 416, 416R) or chromoly steel(4140/4150)
The one question I would like to find the answer to is this: What would be the better steel to use stainless steel (LW50, 410, 416, 416R) or chromoly steel(4140/4150)
Better in what way?
Dave,
Just so I'm tracking on this:
Is the purpose to reduce breakages of the extractor itself?
Or
To get a wider bite on the case rim and allow more extraction force without deforming or ripping the rim off?
Or
To move the pivot point to allow more extractor tension without extra heavy springs?
Pretty much all three (virtually the same extractor as the FN SCAR). Not so much extractor breakage as extractor wear, however.
Better in what way?
Better in throat erosion/leade, gas port erosion and longevity of the rifling.
Particularily concerning to me was the long post with Pat Rodgers stating the standard is 4 MOA. Also noticed most of the people who mention good accuracy (2moa and under) are speaking of non chrome or stainless. I would not be happy 3-4Moa with M193
Are you saying your combat accuracy is BETTER than 3-4 MOA???
Until you or the typical end user can shoot better than that, spending more, or making modifications to get more accurate are wasted.
Now, if nitriding is cheaper, and works as good as or better than CL, that is a valid point. Spend less on equivalence so you can spend more on something else.
Dirtyboy333
06-04-11, 02:57
That's all I'm saying. It really is a valid point.
No, if you talking about a single senario where I'm standing and shooting I'm not a 3-4moa shooter. BUT with all do respect, and I hear the "if you can't shoot better than the gun it doesn't matter" line frequently but that logic is far from the truth.
In fact, that logic strengthens my suggestion for better accuracy as I previously stated. Your rarely going to be aiming dead center so every inch in accuracy will count. Regardless of what my "combat MOA" is, I'm going to shoot more accurately with a more accurate gun. It's just common sense. The less accurate a carbine is translates into more randomness and randomness is completely contradictory to what the TDP stands for.
Now, that's not even considering shooting from a barracade or prone which will help out. I've noticed there is a very select few around here (not you) who place little to no weight on accuracy. I often wonder is this is a biproduct of the "war on terror" and the abundance of CQB operations. Chasing some underequipt ragheads down or kicking in a door and clearing out the room isn't the same as a WW2 type setting with a very equipt and trained enemy where accuracy has more value. Same with SHTF senarios.
It was not my intention to start an accuracy debate but there's one thing that I think we can agree on and that is that better accuracy (w/o compromising other protection etc.) is a good thing. That's basically all that matters and is why I brought it up.
That's all I'm saying. It really is a valid point.
No, if you talking about a single senario where I'm standing and shooting I'm not a 3-4moa shooter. BUT with all do respect, and I hear the "if you can't shoot better than the gun it doesn't matter" line frequently but that logic is far from the truth.
In fact, that logic strengthens my suggestion for better accuracy as I previously stated. Your rarely going to be aiming dead center so every inch in accuracy will count. Regardless of what my "combat MOA" is, I'm going to shoot more accurately with a more accurate gun. It's just common sense. The less accurate a carbine is translates into more randomness and randomness is completely contradictory to what the TDP stands for.
Now, that's not even considering shooting from a barracade or prone which will help out. I've noticed there is a very select few around here (not you) who place little to no weight on accuracy. I often wonder is this is a biproduct of the "war on terror" and the abundance of CQB operations. Chasing some underequipt ragheads down or kicking in a door and clearing out the room isn't the same as a WW2 type setting with a very equipt and trained enemy where accuracy has more value. Same with SHTF senarios.
It was not my intention to start an accuracy debate but there's one thing that I think we can agree on and that is that better accuracy (w/o compromising other protection etc.) is a good thing. That's basically all that matters and is why I brought it up.
Your understanding of infantry rifle historical accuracy is not correct: The accuracy requirement for infantry rifles has not changed since the advent of smokeless powder, and the Krag-Jorgensen.
In fact, the M16/M4 family of rifles/carbines exceed the accuracy requirement better than any previous family of US infantry rifles.
MOA in a combat rifle is complete and utter bullshit, and attempting to get there is a waste of money, that can be spent better on other items, such as ergonomic concerns.
Until, that is, the method of employment can be improved to make use of the kind of accuracy you speak of. 4 MOA rifles to a 2 MOA training standard equals kills up to 200 m on a reliable basis.
Anything better than that, and you are better off working on crew-served and sniper employment issues with your lower level leadership.
I am not an expert in metallurgy or any other discipline. Here are some things I would like to see.
1. Ambidextrous lowers with appropriate controls. Possibly a flared magwell a la the DD lowers.
2. A5 Vltor stock set up with a good solid stock (SOPMOD or even IMOD).
3. Two uppers for all combat units (not M'fers sitting behind the desk). One would be an 18" SPR type and the other an 11.5" or even Mk18 type.
4. A finish like the Glock Tenifer finish applied to exposed steel or even something like the black Ionbond. Anything that will help to reduce rust, etc... Possibly even some special coatings applied to the BCG as a whole.
5. Suppressors for general use by combat troops and issued as part of a kit.
6. Get rid of the ridiculous ass burst shit and go back to an auto trigger. Teach personnel how to use short bursts when needed.
7. Two optics for all the above. Something like an ACOG or something for use at distances and then a red dot like the Aimpoint T-1.
8. Better barrel life.
9. BCM Gunfighter charging handle (medium).
All of this could be issued to every person as part of a kit. Think large Pelican type box.
Magic_Salad0892
06-04-11, 04:35
I am not an expert in metallurgy or any other discipline. Here are some things I would like to see.
1. Ambidextrous lowers with appropriate controls. Possibly a flared magwell a la the DD lowers.
2. A5 Vltor stock set up with a good solid stock (SOPMOD or even IMOD).
3. Two uppers for all combat units (not M'fers sitting behind the desk). One would be an 18" SPR type and the other an 11.5" or even Mk18 type.
4. A finish like the Glock Tenifer finish applied to exposed steel or even something like the black Ionbond. Anything that will help to reduce rust, etc... Possibly even some special coatings applied to the BCG as a whole.
5. Suppressors for general use by combat troops and issued as part of a kit.
6. Get rid of the ridiculous ass burst shit and go back to an auto trigger. Teach personnel how to use short bursts when needed.
7. Two optics for all the above. Something like an ACOG or something for use at distances and then a red dot like the Aimpoint T-1.
8. Better barrel life.
9. BCM Gunfighter charging handle (medium).
All of this could be issued to every person as part of a kit. Think large Pelican type box.
Agreed with most.
However:
Instead of two uppers, wouldn't one upper receiver with a variable sight be better, more universal, and more economic?
Like 12.5'', and 14.5'', with a Elcan made by a company that doesn't suck, like Trijicon, or a Short Dot contract.
Also: Scrap the A2 grip, and make Tango Downs the standard issue.
Dirtyboy333
06-04-11, 04:49
Your understanding of infantry rifle historical accuracy is not correct: The accuracy requirement for infantry rifles has not changed since the advent of smokeless powder, and the Krag-Jorgensen.
In fact, the M16/M4 family of rifles/carbines exceed the accuracy requirement better than any previous family of US infantry rifles.
MOA in a combat rifle is complete and utter bullshit, and attempting to get there is a waste of money, that can be spent better on other items, such as ergonomic concerns.
Until, that is, the method of employment can be improved to make use of the kind of accuracy you speak of. 4 MOA rifles to a 2 MOA training standard equals kills up to 200 m on a reliable basis.
Anything better than that, and you are better off working on crew-served and sniper employment issues with your lower level leadership.
I made no comment that has anything to do with my understanding of historical combat accuracy. Sorry if that was how it seems, it was not my intent. And yeah, I know the M16 family is a very accurate combat rifle. I have no complaints with it's accuracy when compared to other combat rifles. The only point I was trying to make is that by judging by the thread I linked it has great potential to be more consistent than it already is with nitriding. I mean, I would say that an AR is pretty damn reliable but people are still suggesting more lugs, coatings etc. and rightfully so.
Improvement is what this threads about. I don't expect it to be an moa rifle. That is bullshit. BUT if it is reasonably easy to accomplish I would think/hope you would consider it an improvement.
After re-reading my post where said "I wouldn't be happy with 4moa" I mean that since I know that Civi unlined 4140/4150 AR's shoot much better I would be disappointed to get 3-4 moa in perfect conditions with a new buy especially since nitriding offers the same if not better protection. I mistakenly applied that thought to military carbines and I apologize. I guess since I now will only buy AR'S that conform to the TDP (generally) I wasn't necessary thinking of strictly "combat accuracy".
Im not saying at all that CL'd barrels are inaccurate bc that would be false. I'm also not trying to suggest or debate what good "combat accuracy" is.
BOTTOM LINE: I think Nitriding would be a wise improvement to the TDP because the general consensus is that it protects as well if not better than CL and it does not flake off. It also may very well be a cheaper/easier process. Lastly, even though it might not be necessary for mil applications, judging from the linked thread and personal experience with non-chrome chromoly barrels, would increase accuracy.
If that's not a reasonable suggestion then I give up. I will not mention the A word on this site again :p
Dirtyboy333
06-04-11, 05:00
Those are very good upgrades IG. especially the ambi controls, flared magwell and charging handle. Cheap, simple and useful.
I like the others too but I wonder if the cost would
Since 14.5 and 12.5" are so close on the scale, it wouldn't be worthwhile. However, the longer 18" SPR type would.
I suppose the Elcan would work, but they are kind of bulky and heavy.
The cost could be offset by my NFA plan. "The 2014 Military Weapons Upgrade and NFA Restoration Act".
Agreed with most.
However:
Instead of two uppers, wouldn't one upper receiver with a variable sight be better, more universal, and more economic?
Like 12.5'', and 14.5'', with a Elcan made by a company that doesn't suck, like Trijicon, or a Short Dot contract.
Also: Scrap the A2 grip, and make Tango Downs the standard issue.
Magic_Salad0892
06-09-11, 09:05
Since 14.5 and 12.5" are so close on the scale, it wouldn't be worthwhile. However, the longer 18" SPR type would.
I suppose the Elcan would work, but they are kind of bulky and heavy.
The cost could be offset by my NFA plan. "The 2014 Military Weapons Upgrade and NFA Restoration Act".
I can see where you're coming from, but if a 10.5'' gun can make shots out to 600m then the only thing the 18'' SPR gun could do better is accuracy.
12.5'', or 14.5'' with magnification could do the exact same thing. Instead of changing equipment, I'd answer that problem with training.
Also, I'd love to know what your NFA plan is.
It's also about velocity as well. The SPR uppers would be used for example when someone is deployed to Afghanistan as an example and is sitting in a COB/ FOB or acting a DDM/SDM/Sniper whatever.
The shorter configurations would be used when doing urban stuff, inside vehicles, etc...
Of course in a perfect world they would also have proper ammo.
The NFA Plan is real simple and I mentioned it before.
If we end up with a new service weapon or if they phase out certain models, whatever then I propose that all surplus M4's, M16's, etc... as they begin to be phased out be turned over to the CMP and be resold to the civilian populace. You would have to follow the same current NFA purchasing guidelines.
The money generated would go into a special fund that would be used to offset any future costs for those new weapons or whatever and the rest would go to the CMP.
Veterans and active duty personnel would get first dibs on weapons and there would be a limit of 3 per person so as to prevent unscrupulous assholes from screwing people. The prices would be stupidly high like current M16 prices.
I can see where you're coming from, but if a 10.5'' gun can make shots out to 600m then the only thing the 18'' SPR gun could do better is accuracy.
12.5'', or 14.5'' with magnification could do the exact same thing. Instead of changing equipment, I'd answer that problem with training.
Also, I'd love to know what your NFA plan is.
Modern anti corrosion finish on the steel parts maybe. Rust isn't much of an issue on a properly maintained rifle, but still. You still have to make some form of accommodation for the lowest common denominator. Which along with cost, could be viewed as a driving factor behind the current design. Simple, effective and hard to dick up. But that said, it would be beneficial for all soldiers to be comfortable with their weapon from the get go. Ambi controls for sure. The current platform can be trained around for southpaws. But I don't think it should have to. Current ambi lowers accommodate, there's no reason it shouldn't be standard.
A non reciprocating side charging handle would be nice if possible. Though I dont know, off hand how it could be done without opening the receiver more to the elements.
Dirtyboy333
06-10-11, 00:22
IMHO I tend to prefer and seem to be more effective with the current charging handle location given I'm using a BCM Gunfighter or tac latch. I have no issues with bringing my support hand back and charging while the weapon is still shouldered. It's very fast.
It could just be that I'm used to it but it's still much more comfy for me compared to the 55x/AK design where I have to use my grip hand or swipe my support hand over the top. Ymmv
IMHO I tend to prefer and seem to be more effective with the current charging handle location given I'm using a BCM Gunfighter or tac latch. I have no issues with bringing my support hand back and charging while the weapon is still shouldered. It's very fast.
It could just be that I'm used to it but it's still much more comfy for me compared to the 55x/AK design where I have to use my grip hand or swipe my support hand over the top. Ymmv
Oh definitely. It's much more user friendly than the AK. But if it were reversible, side mounted and non reciprocating, you would not have to break your face from the stock or sights . This is all based on my experience with it and remembered back to the first time I picked one up and thinking, "well why'd they do that?". I feel the current set up is the best compromise between simplicity, durability and cost. Breaking the firing position is merely an inconvenience IMHO. But if it can be done better, it probably should be. Though, like i said, i dont know how you would. And yes. The mod4 gunfighter is a must have on any AR, In my humble opinion. I love it.
Dirtyboy333
06-10-11, 06:57
Yeah those gunfighters are a great product. I had to order mine before ever seeing/feeling one in person so I ordered the mod3 which I really like but I think the mod4 woulda been a little bit nicer. The mod4 was the size I originally wanted but I just didn't know it since I didn't have any references.
The Mod4 is really another one of those parts I feel should be standard.
I cant think of any other thing I've hung on my AR that I flat out loved.
To be fair.. I haven't messed with any of the fancy shmancy triggers out there though... lol.
BAD Levers are a growing trend. I wonder if it would be aventagious to incorporate some form of battery device. Like the Masada/ACR's at the bottom front of the trigger guard. Quicker, ambi, probably more complicated though...
Sleeper362
06-10-11, 14:42
Let's also assume DI as well. If someone wants to talk ideal piston gun then start another thread.As far as I am concerned you started and ended the conversation in your first post. Without a major mechanical design change it is not evolved enough to be considered next generation in my eyes/opinion. Anything else is ancillary in nature and is not a true change to the rifle. JMHO not trying to stir shit.
Magic_Salad0892
06-11-11, 07:36
It's also about velocity as well. The SPR uppers would be used for example when someone is deployed to Afghanistan as an example and is sitting in a COB/ FOB or acting a DDM/SDM/Sniper whatever.
The shorter configurations would be used when doing urban stuff, inside vehicles, etc...
Of course in a perfect world they would also have proper ammo.
The NFA Plan is real simple and I mentioned it before.
If we end up with a new service weapon or if they phase out certain models, whatever then I propose that all surplus M4's, M16's, etc... as they begin to be phased out be turned over to the CMP and be resold to the civilian populace. You would have to follow the same current NFA purchasing guidelines.
The money generated would go into a special fund that would be used to offset any future costs for those new weapons or whatever and the rest would go to the CMP.
Veterans and active duty personnel would get first dibs on weapons and there would be a limit of 3 per person so as to prevent unscrupulous assholes from screwing people. The prices would be stupidly high like current M16 prices.
When you say that, do you mean if the assholes did that? or if it happened anyway? Due to supply and demand the prices would drop for a while...
I understood the use, no offence, but the part I'm trying to make clear is IMHO there isn't enough of a velocity/accuracy/usability difference between the barrel profiles. Even an 11.5'' gun with magnification can hit minute of man at 600m with a good sight on it. Hell. I do it with Irons (as it's all I have), in that case, the gun is STILL capable of more than the shooter, and it would be cheaper to buy bullets, and instruction than it would to buy multiple upper receivers for every grunt out there.
Both plans are sound, but IMHO one upper (that can do all - 11.5'', 12.5'', 14.5'') and shit loads of training, and one standard variable optic (Elcan made by a company that doesn't suck, or S&B contract) would produce more enemy casualties in the real world. IMHO and all that, of course I think your idea has a bit more merit than mine because you have a lot more experience over there than I do.
My argument is training > equipment in all aspects.
Back to the TDP thing: If I were to pick stuff from the market today and make a service rifle out of it that would be going to every grunt out there it'd probably be...
(Disclaimer: I'm a little biased)
KAC 200-600m Micro Sights (rear)
M4 upper receiver (Nickel Boron Coated - Phosphate USGI Black like FailZero's offering)
KAC E3 Barrel Extension
KAC E3 Bolt Assembly
FailZero Bolt Carrier
KAC A2 Birdcage Flash Hider Suppressor Mount
KAC QDSS-NT4 Suppressor
Tango Down BG-17 Pistol Grip
KAC E3 Lower Receiver (or ADEX ambi receiver maybe.)
KAC URX-III Rail + Front Sight
1-4X Variable sight
M4 Gen II stock (soldier can purchase their own stock, M4 standard works fine IMO)
KAC Endplate/sling attachment (if E3 receiver wasn't used)
14.5'' barrel (proof tested and all per TDP) double chrome lined, CHF, tapered bore, match crowned - midlength
Smallest gas port possible
VLTOR A5 Receiver extension, with a buffer weight made for 14.5'' + Midlength)
USGI magazines + Magpul Followers
5.56x45mm Mk. 318 Mod. 0 as standard ammunition
Cost not an issue in a perfect world.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.